4 ms·

Why is it “scummy”? If the employer chooses to pay their employees to attend meetings where the employer gives their point of view about unions, how is that dif

Why is it “scummy”? If the employer chooses to pay their employees to attend meetings where the employer gives their point of view about unions, how is that different from a union spending their own money holding a union meeting to express their views to the employees? Or do you think workers can’t be trusted to decide what’s in their best interests if exposed to both sides of an issue?

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>If the employer chooses to pay their employees to attend meetings where the employer gives their point of view about unions, how is that different from a union spending their own money holding a union meeting to express their views to the employees? With union meetings, both parties chose to be there. With the work meetings, one side is compelled to be there as part if their work duties. And yes, they pay them to be there, but that also implies that if they don't listen to what is said at those meetings they'll stop paying them. As most work meetings are about things employees have to do or they'll be fired.
andybak 5y ago
> How is that different from a union spending their own money holding a union meeting to express their views to the employees? The company meetings are compulsory. The union meetings aren't. > Or do you think workers can’t be trusted to decide what’s in their best interests if exposed to both sides of an issue? We like to believe ourselves to be discerning, rational beings, unswayed by propaganda but study after study and the existence of the entire advertising industry provides strong evidence this is not the case.
- gruez 5y ago
  >The company meetings are compulsory. The union meetings aren't. Would you still object if the union could hold mandatory meetings, if they were able to pony up the cash?
  - andybak 5y ago
    I think I'd prefer both sides offer non-mandatory meetings - your scenario is problemmatic in other ways.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

>If the employer chooses to pay their employees to attend meetings where the employer gives their point of view about unions, how is that different from a union spending their own money holding a union meeting to express their views to the employees? With union meetings, both parties chose to be there. With the work meetings, one side is compelled to be there as part if their work duties. And yes, they pay them to be there, but that also implies that if they don't listen to what is said at those meetings they'll stop paying them. As most work meetings are about things employees have to do or they'll be fired.

andybak 5y ago

> How is that different from a union spending their own money holding a union meeting to express their views to the employees? The company meetings are compulsory. The union meetings aren't. > Or do you think workers can’t be trusted to decide what’s in their best interests if exposed to both sides of an issue? We like to believe ourselves to be discerning, rational beings, unswayed by propaganda but study after study and the existence of the entire advertising industry provides strong evidence this is not the case.

gruez 5y ago
>The company meetings are compulsory. The union meetings aren't. Would you still object if the union could hold mandatory meetings, if they were able to pony up the cash?
- andybak 5y ago
  I think I'd prefer both sides offer non-mandatory meetings - your scenario is problemmatic in other ways.